Monitoring Parliamentarians: Promises, Barriers and Dilemmas of Parliamentary Openness
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Monitoring parliamentarians: promises, barriers and dilemmas of parliamentary openness EGPA Study Group on Information and communications technologies in Public Administration Conference 10-12 September 2014, Speyer, Germany Arthur Edwards* Dennis de Kool Charlotte van Ooijen [email protected] *Corresponding author Erasmus University Rotterdam Department of Public Administration P.O. Box 1738 Room T17-34 3000 DR Rotterdam Abstract: This paper focuses on the monitoring of individual parliamentarians and parliamentary groups by independent Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations. Five parliamentary monitoring websites (PMWs) in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are compared regarding their usefulness and democratic value for the monitorial citizen. Our findings indicate that PMWs have democratic value. They have positive effects on accountability and expose weaknesses in the functioning of parliamentarians with regard to integrity and conflicts of interest. However, there are some important barriers regarding usefulness. The existing scholarly knowledge about how voters gather and process information should be better taken into account in the approach to information provision on PMWs. The drive to monitor parliamentarians can have certain perverse effects on the behaviour of parliamentarians. The value of parliamentary monitoring for the quality of parliamentary work deserves further research. DRAFT: please, do not cite without permission of the corresponding author. Comments are welcome! 1 1.Introduction ‘Parliamentary openness’ has become a central concern within the international parliamentary community. The principle involves ‘that information produced by or for the parliament belongs to the citizen’.1 Parliamentary openness refers to a wide range of efforts in providing information on parliamentary processes. It involves the active dissemination of information by parliaments themselves as well as the efforts of civil society actors in accessing, processing and publishing parliamentary data. This paper focuses on parliamentary monitoring, i.e. the monitoring of individual parliamentarians and parliamentary groups by independent information intermediaries, including ‘Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations’ (Mandelbaum 2011). The objects of parliamentary monitoring include voting behaviour and other parliamentary activities, expenses and non-parliamentary incomes, unethical conduct and potential conflicts of interest. As a matter of course, information and communication technologies (ICTs) greatly facilitate parliamentary monitoring, because of their capabilities to store, organize and aggregate information from various sources, and to create platforms for interaction between citizens and politicians. Parliamentary openness and parliamentary monitoring can been related to several democratic aims. The basic expectation is that they further the public knowledge about the functioning of parliaments and their individual members. This could serve other democratic aims, including holding parliamentarians accountable, empowering civil society and encouraging citizen participation. We encompass those aims under the heading of ‘democratic value’ (Hilbert, 2009; Moss and Coleman 2014), which we define as the added value of parliamentary monitoring for democratic practices within a configuration of interacting (representative and more direct) forms of democracy. This paper aims at a critical exploration of the promises, barriers and dilemmas of parliamentary monitoring. We investigate how PMOs select and present information on Parliamentary Monitoring Websites (PMWs), which design choices are thereby made and how these choices affect the democratic value of PMWs. The central question is: What is the democratic value of Parliamentary Monitoring Websites? Our research is structured around three sub questions: (1) How can the democratic value of parliamentary monitoring be conceptualized? (2) Which conditions regarding usefulness have to be fulfilled for the realization of this democratic potential? (3) How are usefulness and democratic value realized on PMWs? The first two questions are dealt with in the theoretical framework. We start by discussing key conditions with regard to the usefulness of parliamentary information for citizens. Usefulness is a necessary condition for the realization of the democratic value of parliamentary data. 1 Declaration on Parliamentary Openness (2012). Opening Parliament.org 2 Democratic value is conceptualized within the framework of models of democracy. Representative democracy is the primary domain within which this democratic potential is discussed. Pluralist democracy, deliberative democracy and direct democracy are taken into consideration as well. The notion of ‘monitorial citizenship’ will be used as a lens to investigate how mechanisms from these models of democracy interact with parliamentary monitoring. For instance, within representative democracy the usage of information provided on PMWs assumes vigilant ‘monitorial voters’. How are monitorial voters facilitated by PMWs? The democratic value of PMWs in representative democracy can also be assessed in terms of the quality and integrity of parliamentary work. This dimension of democratic value will be discussed within the framework of accountability, but not investigated in further detail. The research is based on case studies of five PMWs in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These countries represent a variety of political systems which serves our exploratory aims. In section 2, we present our theoretical framework and research design. In section 3, we provide a description of the selected websites. We present a comparative analysis of the websites in section 4, followed by an assessment of their democratic value in section 5. In section 6, we formulate our conclusions. 2. Theoretical framework and research design Figure 1: conceptual model usage by citizens general conditions for democratic value of parliamentary data: usefulness of parliamentary data representative, pluralist, deliberative, direct democracy information usage by information and preference intermediaries intermediaries Figure 1 presents our conceptual model. For parliamentary data to actually be used by citizens, certain conditions with regard to the usefulness of the data have to be fulfilled. Information 3 intermediaries (PMOs as well as journalists) have a crucial role in this. With regard to democratic value, the role of intermediaries has to be highlighted as well, not only in processing and presenting the data as such, but also in interpreting the data in relation to political preferences. The democratic value of parliamentary monitoring depends not only on the work of journalists but also advocacy groups and political parties (‘preference intermediaries’; Edwards, 2006a). 2.1 Usefulness The drive to increase openness and transparency by means of information access and dissemination entails various problems and tensions. Usefulness is one of the primary principles that should guide decisions about how parliamentary information has to be made available (Dawes, 2010). The principle involves that the disseminated information is relevant to its intended users and is made available in such a way that it can be used in an easy manner. Janssen et al (2012) discuss a number of ‘myths’ concerning ‘open data’ and ‘open government’. ‘Myths’ are ‘seductive tales’, which tend to idealize a specific endeavour by looking at the advantages without sufficient attention to possible drawbacks (Bekkers and Homburg, 2007). Meijer (2009) argues that computer-mediated transparency has some characteristics that can actually threaten trust. Computer-mediated transparency tends to be decontextualized, highly selective and biased toward quantitative information and non- interactive. Grimmelikhuijsen (2012) established that the direct effect of transparency on trust is very limited. On the basis of their discussion of myths, Janssen et al. (2012: 264-266) formulated some recommendations. An important one is to get insight into the users’ perspective and information needs. Dawes (2002) specified a number of ‘usefulness proposals’. The following three design principles for PMWs are partly based upon their work. 1. Appropriate consideration should be given to the objects of monitoring, the information about these objects and the kind of data. At least three problems can be noted. Firstly, information provision is always selective. The choices made with regard to the parliamentary activities to be monitored can affect the voters’ assessment of their representatives. Second, the publicizing of some information and data can result in a misleading or biased picture of the situation. For instance, without contextual information about the political position of the party (in the opposition or in the government), and compromises made in case of coalition governments, simple performance ratings of political groups according to their enactment of election promises can be misleading. Third, publication of certain data can lead to misuse and other undesirable side effects. For instance, rankings of parliamentarians according to their interventions in debates can result in strategic behaviour. 4 2. The publicizing of parliamentary data needs to be accompanied by an infrastructure which is able to handle the data in an easy-to-use way. An example is a concise grouping of data in a ‘profile’ of each representative. Such an infrastructure should lower the barriers for